Instantaneous interdependency - notions of sustainability for the 21st century

by Henning Thomsen

I

It is beyond dispute that humans affect the well-being of the planet in a negative way. A primary source for this can be attributed to the built environment in general and to our urban lifestyle in particular.

Buildings are a primary source of concern. The way we construct them, the way we heat and cool them, the way we service them and light them is responsible for half of the global energy consumption, it eats up half of the natural resources we take from nature, half of the garbage we produce comes from activities of building and half of all the CFC and HCFC consumption also have their source here.

More than 75 % of the global ressource consumption takes place in cities, whereas they only take up 2 % of the planets surface. More than 50 % of the global population live in cities. This figure is expected to increase to 60 % in 2030, which will mean that 5 billion people will live in cities. This enormous growth will constitute an unprecedented pressure on the cities both in terms of social issues and health issues.

It is hardly overstated to say, that never before in the history of mankind has it been as important as now to find answers to the question of how to plan and shape the built environment in a more sustainable way, a way that creates living places characterized by cultural vigor, physical beauty, flourishing communities and a multitude of meeting places. Living places that support social, economic, health and environmental sustainability.

Sustainability starts within ourselves. The ideas we have about sustainability rest on the ideas we have about ourselves. In other words, sustainability cannot be detached from who we are and from how we understand ourselves. The planet's need for us to behave sustainably therefore rests on our ability to beget new and alternative ideas about ourselves, ideas that will promote sustainability much more than is the case today.

These ideas about ourselves have been steered for the last 250 years by two main modes of thinking. On the one hand the romantic mode, on the other the modernistic mode. Both modes of thinking though seem to loose their singular relevance in light of the challenges we face today. They don't hold the answers, we now realize, to the predicament we find ourselves in today. This also has to do with the transformation that our ideas about ourselves are undergoing currently, a transformation which almost claims to be paradigmatic in character. But what do these changes in our conception of ourselves mean for our ability to come up with new ideas about sustainability? Are they the opening we need in order to come up with ideas that will help us make the world more sustainable?

II

Both the romantic mode and the modernistic mode of thinking have followed and shaped us throughout the previous 250 years. They have existed side by side, at times one has been stronger than the other, at times they have been in open conflict with each other. But a rough chronology exists, in that the romantic mode of thinking gradually has been replaced by the modernistic mode of thinking.

The American psychologist and social constructionist Kenneth Gergen has condensed the narrative of the last 250 years in the following manner:

"The cultural life of the 20th century has been dominated by two main modes of thinking with regard to the self. From the 19th century we have inherited a romantic mode of thinking about our self, a mode, that attributes certain deepfelt, inner personal qualities to the individual: passion, soul, creativity and moral character. These attributes are essential when it comes to our ability to establish empathic relations, loyal friendships and meaning in our existence. But since the emergence of the modernistic mode of thinking in the beginning of the 20th century, the romantic mode has been under a growing pressure. To the modernist the main characteristics of the self do not rest in the inner spheres of the individual, but rather in the ability to think rationally - i.e. in our opinions, attitudes and intentionallity. In the modernistic mode of thinking normal people are predictable, honest and sincere. The modernist has faith in reform, a stable family life, moral training and the rational choice of spouse." (The Saturated Self, Kenneth J. Gergen)

Opposite the modernistic and the romantic approach to the self, Gergen positions the postmodern condition. "At the advent of the postmodern era all prior notions of the self come under pressure and hence also the line of action of past times that they support come under pressure," says Gergen.

At the same time it is important to recognize that neither the romantic nor the modernistic conceptions of the self disapear in the postmodern era. We continue to use words and phrases derived from the two modes when speaking, and hence the two modes continue to shape our thoughts and our sentiments.

Gergen's project is neither a romantic mourning of the lost self, nor a modernistic, rational reconstruction of it. Gergen's project is an invitation to the postmodern reality and to give voice to the alternative conceptions of our selves, that postmodernism give rise to. Gergen emphasizes that postmodernism does not promise a world without conflicts. Rather than taking away the conflicts in human nature, that are even very much rooted in our cultural traditions, postmodernism offers a way to handle and reduce the intensity in conflicts by:

"Firstly offering to move our focus from principles to participant. In the western cultural tradition there exists a tradition where conflicts are handled via an intricate and abstract system of justification, rules, principles or laws, that are constructed to bring relief from our disagreements. In the Middle Ages one looked towards the holy scriptures, the romanticists had faith in morale, and the modernists trusted the rational mind to be able to solve the issues at stake. But seen from a postmodern platform solutions base don principles are futile and misleading in nature. No one is neutral […] Rather than seeking absolution in transcendental principles postmodernism confronts us with a world of instantaneous interdependency." (The Saturated Self, Kenneth J. Gergen)

Postmodernism, in a most fundamental manner, leaves behind the notion that there exist fixed points of reference and that solutions based on principles is possible. 'No one is neutral,' says Gergen, and emphazises that it is through the acknowledgment of this 'instantaneous interdependency' that the postmodern in the most radical sense differs from both the romantic notion of the self as also the modernistic notion of the self. "The postmodern condition offers visions that hold enormous potentials for mankind - given that you remain open to the novel experience," Gergen concludes.

IV
In relation to the built environment it is obvious that neither the romantic notion of the world nor the modernistic notion of the world offer a way to deal with the fundamental challenges we face today of making our world more sustainable.

The romantic notion, which continues to thrive in the world of architecture, does from time to time bring about remarkable objects of art, but by and large remains secluded. It blooms in enclaves in academies or in small local configurations, but it fails to make its voice heard in the dialogue with the larger global challenges - it simply doen't have anything to offer to the community that in any way is up to par with the challenges we face.

The modernistic notion continues to see itself as a credible alternative, that will also be able to counter the challenges we face today of making our world more sustainable. But also the modernistic notion has lost much of its credibility, relying too often, as it does, on the technological fix as the solution, leaving behind the equally important social context and the larger part of the world where poverty will not allow the high tech solutions to become implemented, if they were available.

We therefore must conclude that in our search for sustainability we seem not to be able to find unified modes of action, that will acknowledge all ethical attitudes, goals and situations. There is no style or category, that unambiguously is sustainable, and no a priori rules, that can guarantee that our actions result in sustainability. There are only difficult, reciprocal and connected decisions, that must be made and which themselves are contextually dependent.

Against this background, a first step towards a notion of sustainability for the 21st century must lie in the acknowledgement of the 'instantenuous interdependency'. The key to this lies in our social practices, rather than in any single technological fix, and these practices should not be separated from economic and the socio-cultural sustainability - the so-called 'triple bottomline'.

The role of the architect, planner and designer in this - resting as it does on the acknowledgement of the 'instantenuous interdependency' and on engagement in the social practices - is radically different from the prevalent notions of the role of the architect, planner and designer, that by and large still rest on the romantic and the modernistic notion, described above.

The investigation of what this requires for the architect, planner and designer, must be a first and necessary step towards a notion of sustainability for the 21st century.